-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Refactor otlp exporter #146
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
"otlp_http": { | ||
"$ref": "common.json#/$defs/OtlpHttpExporter" | ||
}, | ||
"otlp_grpc": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There's a question of whether we should align with the names of exporters in the collector, which follows the same strategy of splitting the exporter by transport:
I've chosen to not align with the collector for a couple of reasons:
- The collector follows a different case naming convention than this project. We prefer lower snake case, while the collector prefers something that I've seen called flatcase or mumblecase. We'd have to break our case policy to align with the collector.
- The collector prefers gRPC, which is an out of date default. By omitting a suffix on the grpc variant (i.e.
otlp
vsotlpgrpc
andotlphttp
instead ofotlp
), the collector is expressing a subtle preference for grpc. This was the original default for OTLP but OTEL has since switched course preferring HTTP. In the naming convention I've chosen, HTTP and gRPC are presented as equals. I don't think we should express a preference, but if we did, it should be for HTTP (i.e.otlp
for HTTP andotlpgrpc
for gRPC). This would be confusing for collector users, so better to explicitly break rank.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, with only a small comment on naming (proto -> protobuf)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I know we're still not providing backwards compatibility guarantees, but changes like this (and previously the headers change) should be captured somewhere as being breaking changes.
Maybe it's easy enough to label the title of this PR breaking: refactor OTLP exporter
so that at release time these are listed in the release notes
Let's do this. We can add a note to the release workflow indicating that breaking changes should be called out clearly in the changelog. |
…y-configuration into refactor-otlp-exporter
Resolves #103.
otlp
exporter intootlp_http
for HTTP transport, andotlp_grpc
for gRPC transportotlp.protocol
propertyotlp.endpoint
property from required, since there is now a reasonable default.otlp_http
andotlp_grpc
can both be set to null. Since there are no longer any required properties, its reasonable for a user to specifyotlp_http:
,otlp_grpc:
..insecure
property is only applicable tootlp_grpc
encoding
property with valuesproto
orjson
forotlp_http
. Default isproto
.Unrelated changes bundled in:
*Exporter
prefixI've prototyped this change in opentelemetry-java here.